Hoo boy, that's going to be like Psyche sorting the seeds (and will take 6839 times as long...)

If the RCC abandons doctrines and practices that have accrued since the Schism, the people who introduced or supported them will no longer be considered saints. No Lourdes - no St Bernadette, no Divine Mercy - no St Faustina Kowalska, etc. But those are the minority. The vast majority of post-schism saints would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for Orthodox compatibility, and they're a lot of people to go through. I wouldn't be surprised if some extent of blanket decision was adopted, potentially hingeing on monastic order affiliation.

All the above, of course, is theorising of the vaguest kind.

Logged

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

“The author of these books is a Latin by birth and so he adheres to the dogma of that church as an inheritance; this is only human. But he is a wise man, and is inferior to none of those who are perfect in wisdom among men. He wrote most especially as a commentator of Aristotelian philosophy, and of the Old and New Testaments. Most of the principal conclusions of both Sacred Theology and philosophy are seen in his books, almost all of which we have studied, both the few which were translated by others into the Greek language, and their Latin originals, some of which we ourselves have translated into our own tongue.... In all the aforesaid areas this wise man is most excellent, as the best interpreter and synthesizer in those matters in which his church agrees with ours.”- St Gennadius Scholarius

Logged

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

“The author of these books is a Latin by birth and so he adheres to the dogma of that church as an inheritance; this is only human. But he is a wise man, and is inferior to none of those who are perfect in wisdom among men. He wrote most especially as a commentator of Aristotelian philosophy, and of the Old and New Testaments. Most of the principal conclusions of both Sacred Theology and philosophy are seen in his books, almost all of which we have studied, both the few which were translated by others into the Greek language, and their Latin originals, some of which we ourselves have translated into our own tongue.... In all the aforesaid areas this wise man is most excellent, as the best interpreter and synthesizer in those matters in which his church agrees with ours.”- St Gennadius Scholarius

I have seen Scholarios invoked frequently when it comes to Aquinas, and I believe this quote is genuine, but I would like to see where it comes from precisely and what it's context is. We already see in it some clues (bolded) that it may not be precisely what some would like it be. The reason being is that in his Examination of Certain Passages from the Latin Fathers, he traces an arc from Augustine to Aquinas and Scotus and criticizes the Latin over-reliance on reasoning in their scholastic methodology, contrasting them with St. John of Damascus (who is, ironically, also frequently invoked as a defense of such methods).

An example from that text:

"The Asiatic theologians are thought to be more precise because they did not place great trust in their intellects when speaking of things divine, neither did they cling strongly to human wisdom which Augustine overused."

And, in his Concerning the Procession of the Holy Spirit, he criticizes the scholastics for basing their theology on one or two fathers:

"We believe in the one Church, while they believe in Augustine and Jerome. The Church is the dogmas, and the teachings of our Lord, along with whatever the holy apostles and councils have decreed of one accord."

« Last Edit: January 15, 2018, 02:41:40 PM by Antonis »

Logged

"This is the one from the beginning, who seemed to be new, yet was found to be ancient and always young, being born in the hearts of the saints."Letter to Diognetus 11.4

“The author of these books is a Latin by birth and so he adheres to the dogma of that church as an inheritance; this is only human. But he is a wise man, and is inferior to none of those who are perfect in wisdom among men. He wrote most especially as a commentator of Aristotelian philosophy, and of the Old and New Testaments. Most of the principal conclusions of both Sacred Theology and philosophy are seen in his books, almost all of which we have studied, both the few which were translated by others into the Greek language, and their Latin originals, some of which we ourselves have translated into our own tongue.... In all the aforesaid areas this wise man is most excellent, as the best interpreter and synthesizer in those matters in which his church agrees with ours.”- St Gennadius Scholarius

Logged

"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

“The author of these books is a Latin by birth and so he adheres to the dogma of that church as an inheritance; this is only human. But he is a wise man, and is inferior to none of those who are perfect in wisdom among men. He wrote most especially as a commentator of Aristotelian philosophy, and of the Old and New Testaments. Most of the principal conclusions of both Sacred Theology and philosophy are seen in his books, almost all of which we have studied, both the few which were translated by others into the Greek language, and their Latin originals, some of which we ourselves have translated into our own tongue.... In all the aforesaid areas this wise man is most excellent, as the best interpreter and synthesizer in those matters in which his church agrees with ours.”- St Gennadius Scholarius

I have seen Scholarios invoked frequently when it comes to Aquinas, and I believe this quote is genuine, but I would like to see where it comes from precisely and what it's context is. We already see in it some clues (bolded) that it may not be precisely what some would like it be. The reason being is that in his Examination of Certain Passages from the Latin Fathers, he traces an arc from Augustine to Aquinas and Scotus and criticizes the Latin over-reliance on reasoning in their scholastic methodology, contrasting them with St. John of Damascus (who is, ironically, also frequently invoked as a defense of such methods).

An example from that text:

"The Asiatic theologians are thought to be more precise because they did not place great trust in their intellects when speaking of things divine, neither did they cling strongly to human wisdom which Augustine overused."

And, in his Concerning the Procession of the Holy Spirit, he criticizes the scholastics for basing their theology on one or two fathers:

"We believe in the one Church, while they believe in Augustine and Jerome. The Church is the dogmas, and the teachings of our Lord, along with whatever the holy apostles and councils have decreed of one accord."

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. The point I see in that quote is not necessarily "Aquinas is a-ok" it's "Aquinas was a holy and diligent man even if he was wrong about some things."

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

“The author of these books is a Latin by birth and so he adheres to the dogma of that church as an inheritance; this is only human. But he is a wise man, and is inferior to none of those who are perfect in wisdom among men. He wrote most especially as a commentator of Aristotelian philosophy, and of the Old and New Testaments. Most of the principal conclusions of both Sacred Theology and philosophy are seen in his books, almost all of which we have studied, both the few which were translated by others into the Greek language, and their Latin originals, some of which we ourselves have translated into our own tongue.... In all the aforesaid areas this wise man is most excellent, as the best interpreter and synthesizer in those matters in which his church agrees with ours.”- St Gennadius Scholarius

I have seen Scholarios invoked frequently when it comes to Aquinas, and I believe this quote is genuine, but I would like to see where it comes from precisely and what it's context is. We already see in it some clues (bolded) that it may not be precisely what some would like it be. The reason being is that in his Examination of Certain Passages from the Latin Fathers, he traces an arc from Augustine to Aquinas and Scotus and criticizes the Latin over-reliance on reasoning in their scholastic methodology, contrasting them with St. John of Damascus (who is, ironically, also frequently invoked as a defense of such methods).

An example from that text:

"The Asiatic theologians are thought to be more precise because they did not place great trust in their intellects when speaking of things divine, neither did they cling strongly to human wisdom which Augustine overused."

And, in his Concerning the Procession of the Holy Spirit, he criticizes the scholastics for basing their theology on one or two fathers:

"We believe in the one Church, while they believe in Augustine and Jerome. The Church is the dogmas, and the teachings of our Lord, along with whatever the holy apostles and councils have decreed of one accord."

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. The point I see in that quote is not necessarily "Aquinas is a-ok" it's "Aquinas was a holy and diligent man even if he was wrong about some things."

I'm not seeing "holy" in there, but otherwise we are in agreement.

Logged

"This is the one from the beginning, who seemed to be new, yet was found to be ancient and always young, being born in the hearts of the saints."Letter to Diognetus 11.4

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Perhaps it could at least be said that they don't encourage you to put yourself in scenes with Jesus the way some Catholic devotions seem to?

Maybe, but that’s not the same as a flat condemnation of imagination. Then we also sing stuff like this throughout the year: “Let us run then to the Jordan. Let us all see how John baptizes a sinless and uncreated Head.“

Logged

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Frankly, I don't think anyone outside the Orthodox Church should be venerated as a saint, so even as I think the claim that the West simply went gracelss at 1054 (not only setting an arbitrary date for most of the West, but also ignoring grey areas such as the British Isles and Sardinia) is far-fetched, I do believe the whole West fell at some moment at the Late Middle Ages, so I won't hold any Roman Catholic saints in my book beyond mere outsider religious admiration.

Maybe one could paint haloless icons of Francis of Assisi just like there are those of Greek Pagan philosophers out there.

« Last Edit: January 15, 2018, 07:22:13 PM by RaphaCam »

Logged

"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

Frankly, I don't think anyone outside the Orthodox Church should be venerated as a saint, so even as I think the claim that the West simply went gracelss at 1054 (not only setting an arbitrary date for most of the West, but also ignoring grey areas such as the British Isles and Sardinia) is far-fetched, I do believe the whole West fell at some moment at the Late Middle Ages, so I won't hold any Roman Catholic saints in my book beyond mere outsider religious admiration.

Maybe one could paint haloless icons of Francis of Assisi just like there are those of Greek Pagan philosophers out there.

What about Margaret Mary Alacoque?(Once again, making no judgment on this woman - I hope she's in heaven - but is her spiritual life and desires consistent with Orthodoxy?)

I'm not sure it's very profitable to dedicate a thread to listing RC saints only in order to poo-poo this or that element of their spiritual lives. They sought God with more fervor than I do and by-and-large did the best with what was available to them. More than anything, they are an indictment against us Orthodox who have been given a larger share of talents and have not multiplied them accordingly. It's probably best to leave it at RaphaCam's sentiments.

« Last Edit: January 15, 2018, 07:57:21 PM by Antonis »

Logged

"This is the one from the beginning, who seemed to be new, yet was found to be ancient and always young, being born in the hearts of the saints."Letter to Diognetus 11.4

In the event of a reunion, which saints do you think would be alright to venerate, and which saints do you think might be problematic?

Myself.

I know some rather conservative Lebanese Orthodox with a devotion to you.

Are we talking about the original St. Sharbel or is this a Mor-style hit line?

Logged

"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

In the event of a reunion, which saints do you think would be alright to venerate, and which saints do you think might be problematic?

Myself.

I know some rather conservative Lebanese Orthodox with a devotion to you.

Are we talking about the original St. Sharbel or is this a Mor-style hit line?

The latter.

St. Sharbel is a modern Desert Father and would likely be embraced by all Orthodox much like he already is by the Syrian and Greek Orthodox in Lebanon.

In his canonization process, the person responsible for his case in the Vatican was astonished to read the witnesses report events of his life that mirrored those we normally read about the Desert Fathers, something that the Vatican official was a matter of pious exaggeration, not of fact.

Unfortunately, Jackson, the answer is not so simple as that. The history of Orthodox-Catholic relations throughout the Middle Ages show that each communion recognized some degree of ecclesial reality in the other. The Cyprianic interpretation of schism which you provide is not sound, and St. Vincent of Lerins actually uses it in the Commonitorium to show how controversies in the Church are resolved- while venerating St. Cyprian, St. Vincent says the criterion of “everywhere, always, by all” is recognized by all as having vindicated St. Stephen. I firmly believe the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, but this does not entail that the Roman communion possesses no ecclesiality at all- rather, she participates imperfectly in the Church of Christ. If that sounds like Lumen Gentium, it’s because Lumen Gentium was influenced by Orthodox theologians like Florovsky, Affanassieff (who was present at the Council) and Staniloae (a man of impeccable sanctity and a partner of Fr. Arsenie Boca the Wonderworker). Moreover, the rupture between East and West was gradual. Pope Urban II in 1090 spoke of the Greeks as fellow Christians and members of the Church- 40 years after 1054. The real severance emerged in the 12th-13th centuries, but it was never absolute. Chrysostom Frank has helpfully documented the history of fraternal relations between East and West throughout the Middle Ages and beyond, though I am ultimately more conservative than Frank.

To the original post, I think we can receive nearly all of them. The one I would like to expunge is Josaphat the Malevolent. But it seems to me that his cult is more of a “top-down” imposition and that he has no real organic veneration among Catholics. If we leave it alone, he would probably naturally fall off the calendar, as happened to Michael Cerularius, for example, who was canonized locally but who most certainly did not deserve it. The cult died out naturally because the Holy Spirit was not working to create it. It’s well known that a number of Orthodox saints were influenced by Western spirituality and studied the writings of Catholic saints. The quotation of St. Gennadius on Aquinas above comes from his introduction to his translation of Aquinas’ works. Certainly, St. Gennadius rejected Aquinas in some of his conclusions (Aquinas’ take on absolute simplicity, the Filioque, and the absolute and immediate jurisdiction of the Pope) but the first time you start seeing methodological critiques of Scholasticism from Orthodox is the 20th century, to my knowledge. Scholasticism isn’t problematic in method- it’s the conclusions reached by certain medieval Latin Scholastics which are problematic for Orthodoxy. (Not to say that it’s the ONLY or most important theological method, though)

Another point on St. Thomas- he appeared to an abortionist in Russia and brought about his repentance and conversion- to the Orthodox faith!

The point about imagination in Latin spirituality made above is an interesting one, and I don’t want to dismiss it. But it should be said that imaginative exercises are not absent from Orthodox spirituality. For example, in St. Porphyrios’ “Wounded by Love”, he criticizes those who accused him of prelest for visually imagining the Crucified Christ as he said the Jesus Prayer. At the very least the issue is more complex than it is sometimes presented. St. Ignatius Brianchaninov considered a number of Latin saints to have been immersed in delusion, but there are other Orthodox saints who held them in very high regard. Actually, even St. Mark of Ephesus (the popular portrait of him is just wrong) studied Latin saints and spirituality- he appealed to the writings and theology of St. Bonaventure at the Council of Florence.

At a personal level, I find a hardline position very difficult to believe, given what I have seen and heard. A friend of mine, raised Catholic, actually began his journey to Orthodoxy when he saw the divine light in a monk’s face- a Catholic monk! This inspired him to seek to understand the divine light, and he found Orthodoxy. So the fruit is good. There are countless witnesses to the clairvoyance and sanctity of Padre Pio, who displayed many of the same traits in confession as do our Orthodox saints.

So I think Rome is definitely wrong on a number of important theological points- its understanding of the Petrine office, the procession of the Spirit, and the doctrine of the divine energies. But God is incredibly merciful, and He strives to use what people have to bring them to salvation.

Unfortunately, Jackson, the answer is not so simple as that. The history of Orthodox-Catholic relations throughout the Middle Ages show that each communion recognized some degree of ecclesial reality in the other. The Cyprianic interpretation of schism which you provide is not sound, and St. Vincent of Lerins actually uses it in the Commonitorium to show how controversies in the Church are resolved- while venerating St. Cyprian, St. Vincent says the criterion of “everywhere, always, by all” is recognized by all as having vindicated St. Stephen. I firmly believe the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, but this does not entail that the Roman communion possesses no ecclesiality at all- rather, she participates imperfectly in the Church of Christ. If that sounds like Lumen Gentium, it’s because Lumen Gentium was influenced by Orthodox theologians like Florovsky, Affanassieff (who was present at the Council) and Staniloae (a man of impeccable sanctity and a partner of Fr. Arsenie Boca the Wonderworker). Moreover, the rupture between East and West was gradual. Pope Urban II in 1090 spoke of the Greeks as fellow Christians and members of the Church- 40 years after 1054. The real severance emerged in the 12th-13th centuries, but it was never absolute. Chrysostom Frank has helpfully documented the history of fraternal relations between East and West throughout the Middle Ages and beyond, though I am ultimately more conservative than Frank.

To the original post, I think we can receive nearly all of them. The one I would like to expunge is Josaphat the Malevolent. But it seems to me that his cult is more of a “top-down” imposition and that he has no real organic veneration among Catholics. If we leave it alone, he would probably naturally fall off the calendar, as happened to Michael Cerularius, for example, who was canonized locally but who most certainly did not deserve it. The cult died out naturally because the Holy Spirit was not working to create it. It’s well known that a number of Orthodox saints were influenced by Western spirituality and studied the writings of Catholic saints. The quotation of St. Gennadius on Aquinas above comes from his introduction to his translation of Aquinas’ works. Certainly, St. Gennadius rejected Aquinas in some of his conclusions (Aquinas’ take on absolute simplicity, the Filioque, and the absolute and immediate jurisdiction of the Pope) but the first time you start seeing methodological critiques of Scholasticism from Orthodox is the 20th century, to my knowledge. Scholasticism isn’t problematic in method- it’s the conclusions reached by certain medieval Latin Scholastics which are problematic for Orthodoxy. (Not to say that it’s the ONLY or most important theological method, though)

Another point on St. Thomas- he appeared to an abortionist in Russia and brought about his repentance and conversion- to the Orthodox faith!

The point about imagination in Latin spirituality made above is an interesting one, and I don’t want to dismiss it. But it should be said that imaginative exercises are not absent from Orthodox spirituality. For example, in St. Porphyrios’ “Wounded by Love”, he criticizes those who accused him of prelest for visually imagining the Crucified Christ as he said the Jesus Prayer. At the very least the issue is more complex than it is sometimes presented. St. Ignatius Brianchaninov considered a number of Latin saints to have been immersed in delusion, but there are other Orthodox saints who held them in very high regard. Actually, even St. Mark of Ephesus (the popular portrait of him is just wrong) studied Latin saints and spirituality- he appealed to the writings and theology of St. Bonaventure at the Council of Florence.

At a personal level, I find a hardline position very difficult to believe, given what I have seen and heard. A friend of mine, raised Catholic, actually began his journey to Orthodoxy when he saw the divine light in a monk’s face- a Catholic monk! This inspired him to seek to understand the divine light, and he found Orthodoxy. So the fruit is good. There are countless witnesses to the clairvoyance and sanctity of Padre Pio, who displayed many of the same traits in confession as do our Orthodox saints.

So I think Rome is definitely wrong on a number of important theological points- its understanding of the Petrine office, the procession of the Spirit, and the doctrine of the divine energies. But God is incredibly merciful, and He strives to use what people have to bring them to salvation.

Are you kabane the christian, the young lad that made some youtube videos responding the berean beacon video about the EO?

Being a convert from the RCC I had certain ideas in mind when referencing 'imagination' in conjunction with the spiritual exercises of Ignatius of Loyola. Much stressed is put upon imagining oneself at the various scenes of our Lord's life as well as forming mental images of both Him and the Theotokos during prayer, two things I always thought were discouraged in Orthodoxy.

Apologies for not being more clear.

Logged

Saved by the Grace of Christ apart from works.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.... Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them...

Being a convert from the RCC I had certain ideas in mind when referencing 'imagination' in conjunction with the spiritual exercises of Ignatius of Loyola. Much stressed is put upon imagining oneself at the various scenes of our Lord's life as well as forming mental images of both Him and the Theotokos during prayer, two things I always thought were discouraged in Orthodoxy.

Apologies for not being more clear.

That is what I understood - it's a point that my main priest constantly beats in our brains.

I asked him about praying the Rosary at a personal level, because it helped me spiritually, and he said that it's okay under two conditions:

1. That I pray Truth, and not falsehood - no Filioque; if there is an "Immaculate Conception" Rosary to avoid that.

2. Avoid the imagination - that is what we have icons for, and using the imagination can lead to delusion.

Our service texts are prayers. At matins, vespers, or divine liturgy, if you are paying attention, you will be using your imagination, which means you will be visualizing scenes from the scriptures or church tradition. You will be witnessing Christ's baptism, or his triumphal entry to Jerusalem, or his crucifixion and resurrection. You'll be visualizing the Mother of God holding her protecting veil over Constantinople, or ascending the steps of the Temple. So yes, we use our imagination in prayer, guided by the hymn texts and scripture.

In certain forms of lofty, contemplative prayer, such as the Prayer of the Heart, we are strongly enjoined to keep our mind clear of images and ignore any visions. Here the imagination can be a ground for great danger and temptation, leading to false ecstasies, false realizations, and other kinds of delusion, because we are trying to contemplate God in a silent and direct way; we have to keep our minds clear because we want to receive some blessing which is beyond images and words. But it does not follow from there that any spiritual practice involving imagination leads to delusion and prelest. I'm not sure when the tendency first started to take the imageless character of Orthodox contemplative prayer and use it as a bludgeon against any visualization of things not readily apparent to the senses, but it seems to me like a cheap polemical trick against the Catholics which in fact undermines Orthodoxy as well.

Logged

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Being a convert from the RCC I had certain ideas in mind when referencing 'imagination' in conjunction with the spiritual exercises of Ignatius of Loyola. Much stressed is put upon imagining oneself at the various scenes of our Lord's life as well as forming mental images of both Him and the Theotokos during prayer, two things I always thought were discouraged in Orthodoxy.

I'm not sure that St. Ignatius recommended such use of imagination during prayer, but when reading the scriptures.

In certain forms of lofty, contemplative prayer, such as the Prayer of the Heart, we are strongly enjoined to keep our mind clear of images and ignore any visions. Here the imagination can be a ground for great danger and temptation, leading to false ecstasies, false realizations, and other kinds of delusion, because we are trying to contemplate God in a silent and direct way; we have to keep our minds clear because we want to receive some blessing which is beyond images and words.

Personally, the text I highlighted above is of the essence to me. Using the imagination limits our ability to receive God's light, who's beyond any human framework, imagined or real. The only act of the will during prayer can be only one: love God.

Unfortunately, Jackson, the answer is not so simple as that. The history of Orthodox-Catholic relations throughout the Middle Ages show that each communion recognized some degree of ecclesial reality in the other. The Cyprianic interpretation of schism which you provide is not sound, and St. Vincent of Lerins actually uses it in the Commonitorium to show how controversies in the Church are resolved- while venerating St. Cyprian, St. Vincent says the criterion of “everywhere, always, by all” is recognized by all as having vindicated St. Stephen. I firmly believe the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, but this does not entail that the Roman communion possesses no ecclesiality at all- rather, she participates imperfectly in the Church of Christ. If that sounds like Lumen Gentium, it’s because Lumen Gentium was influenced by Orthodox theologians like Florovsky, Affanassieff (who was present at the Council) and Staniloae (a man of impeccable sanctity and a partner of Fr. Arsenie Boca the Wonderworker). Moreover, the rupture between East and West was gradual. Pope Urban II in 1090 spoke of the Greeks as fellow Christians and members of the Church- 40 years after 1054. The real severance emerged in the 12th-13th centuries, but it was never absolute. Chrysostom Frank has helpfully documented the history of fraternal relations between East and West throughout the Middle Ages and beyond, though I am ultimately more conservative than Frank.

To the original post, I think we can receive nearly all of them. The one I would like to expunge is Josaphat the Malevolent. But it seems to me that his cult is more of a “top-down” imposition and that he has no real organic veneration among Catholics. If we leave it alone, he would probably naturally fall off the calendar, as happened to Michael Cerularius, for example, who was canonized locally but who most certainly did not deserve it. The cult died out naturally because the Holy Spirit was not working to create it. It’s well known that a number of Orthodox saints were influenced by Western spirituality and studied the writings of Catholic saints. The quotation of St. Gennadius on Aquinas above comes from his introduction to his translation of Aquinas’ works. Certainly, St. Gennadius rejected Aquinas in some of his conclusions (Aquinas’ take on absolute simplicity, the Filioque, and the absolute and immediate jurisdiction of the Pope) but the first time you start seeing methodological critiques of Scholasticism from Orthodox is the 20th century, to my knowledge. Scholasticism isn’t problematic in method- it’s the conclusions reached by certain medieval Latin Scholastics which are problematic for Orthodoxy. (Not to say that it’s the ONLY or most important theological method, though)

Another point on St. Thomas- he appeared to an abortionist in Russia and brought about his repentance and conversion- to the Orthodox faith!

The point about imagination in Latin spirituality made above is an interesting one, and I don’t want to dismiss it. But it should be said that imaginative exercises are not absent from Orthodox spirituality. For example, in St. Porphyrios’ “Wounded by Love”, he criticizes those who accused him of prelest for visually imagining the Crucified Christ as he said the Jesus Prayer. At the very least the issue is more complex than it is sometimes presented. St. Ignatius Brianchaninov considered a number of Latin saints to have been immersed in delusion, but there are other Orthodox saints who held them in very high regard. Actually, even St. Mark of Ephesus (the popular portrait of him is just wrong) studied Latin saints and spirituality- he appealed to the writings and theology of St. Bonaventure at the Council of Florence.

At a personal level, I find a hardline position very difficult to believe, given what I have seen and heard. A friend of mine, raised Catholic, actually began his journey to Orthodoxy when he saw the divine light in a monk’s face- a Catholic monk! This inspired him to seek to understand the divine light, and he found Orthodoxy. So the fruit is good. There are countless witnesses to the clairvoyance and sanctity of Padre Pio, who displayed many of the same traits in confession as do our Orthodox saints.

So I think Rome is definitely wrong on a number of important theological points- its understanding of the Petrine office, the procession of the Spirit, and the doctrine of the divine energies. But God is incredibly merciful, and He strives to use what people have to bring them to salvation.

+1

I dare say that there is grace outside the Church. If there wasn't, there would be no converts to her. For it is always the Lord who takes the initiative and our part is merely following Him to His Church.

I believe that much of what St. Thomas Aquinas wrote is either not compatible with the Orthodox faith or is problematic in its current form. As for the quote of St. Gennadius Scholarius cited earlier in this thread, I think that it is important to remember some things about St. Gennadius's life. He was a layman and a professor of philosophy for many years before becoming the first patriarch of Constantinople after the fall of the city to the Turks. I think that his enthusiasm for St. Thomas is linked to these factors. St. Thomas was an avowed Aristotelian in his approach to philosophy and so was St. Gennadius. St. Gennadius was present at Ferrara-Florence as a staunch proponent of union with Rome, although he changed his mind later and never signed the decree of union. In fact, along with St. Mark of Ephesus, he became one of the fiercest opponents of union with Rome.

To the original post, I think we can receive nearly all of them. The one I would like to expunge is Josaphat the Malevolent.

I think there are quite a few more than just St. Josaphat, but never mind.

Quote

St. Gennadius rejected Aquinas in some of his conclusions (Aquinas’ take on absolute simplicity, the Filioque, and the absolute and immediate jurisdiction of the Pope) but the first time you start seeing methodological critiques of Scholasticism from Orthodox is the 20th century, to my knowledge. Scholasticism isn’t problematic in method- it’s the conclusions reached by certain medieval Latin Scholastics which are problematic for Orthodoxy.

I would think that the reason why the first critiques of scholasticism in the Orthodox world were reluctant to attack scholasticism as a method is connected to the likelihood that the authors of these critiques were themselves unwittingly immersed in a scholastic worldview which had held sway in Orthodox intellectual circles for many hundreds of years because of rampant Western influence brought on by the tragic loss of Eastern Christian intellectual traditions with the advent of the Turkocracy and other factors. And yes, many Orthodox scholastics are still with us today, and there are those who though not scholastics themselves defend the method as being something largely innocuous. But in my view this does not change the fact that not only the conclusions drawn by scholasticism, but the very method itself is entirely foreign to Orthodoxy. I think that some (though not all) of the more recent origins of estrangement between East and West are to be found in the Latin embrace of scholasticism. "We are not even asking the same questions about the faith anymore."

When it comes to St. Thomas as he stands apart from his theology and philosophy, I am inclined to take a positive view. By all accounts, those who interacted with him found him to be most affable. He himself, in a sense, rejected his own writings when he had a mystical vision near the end of his life and could not continue with his work. I believe he is reputed to have said something to the effect that everything he had written was straw. Why this does not seem to have been considered by his numerous adherents is beyond me.

Quote

So I think Rome is definitely wrong on a number of important theological points....But God is incredibly merciful, and He strives to use what people have to bring them to salvation.

This should be a simple answer: Roman Catholics no matter how their teachings may aline with Orthodoxy are still outside the church.

lolOut of the 2 only the Roman Catholic Church teaches as a dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church

St Thomas stated if you don't believe in the filioque you don't have the faithCHAPTER 31That to believe the Holy Spirit is from the Son is necessary for salvation.For Athanasius says in his letter to Serapion: “In accord with the command of the Apostle (Tit. 3:10): After a first and second correction avoid a heretic, even those you might see flying through the air with Elijah or walking dryshod on the water like Peter and Moses; unless they profess just as we profess that the Holy Spirit is God naturally existing from God the Son, as the son also is naturally God begotten eternally and existing of God and Father, you are not to receive them.” And again: “Have no communion with those who blaspheme and deny that the Holy Spirit is God from the nature of God the Son.”

Likewise Cyril in his Thesaurus says: “It is necessary for our salvation to confess that the Holy Spirit exists of the essence of the Son, as existing of him by nature.” Footnote So, too, Epiphanius in his book on the Trinity: “You cut yourself off from the grace of God when you do not admit the Son to be from the Father or say that the Holy Spirit is not from the Father and the Son.”

It is, therefore, clear that in no way are they to be tolerated who deny the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

Augustine"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? Forif the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not havebreathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon themexcept that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him" (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).

So to be saved you must have the same faith as St.Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, St Francis Assisi...which you don't because you haven't studied enough or just refuse the truth in your stubbornness..you better rethink your position

So to be saved you must have the same faith as St.Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, St Francis Assisi...which you don't because you haven't studied enough or just refuse the truth in your stubbornness..you better rethink your position

This should be a simple answer: Roman Catholics no matter how their teachings may aline with Orthodoxy are still outside the church.

lolOut of the 2 only the Roman Catholic Church teaches as a dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church

St Thomas stated if you don't believe in the filioque you don't have the faithCHAPTER 31That to believe the Holy Spirit is from the Son is necessary for salvation.For Athanasius says in his letter to Serapion: “In accord with the command of the Apostle (Tit. 3:10): After a first and second correction avoid a heretic, even those you might see flying through the air with Elijah or walking dryshod on the water like Peter and Moses; unless they profess just as we profess that the Holy Spirit is God naturally existing from God the Son, as the son also is naturally God begotten eternally and existing of God and Father, you are not to receive them.” And again: “Have no communion with those who blaspheme and deny that the Holy Spirit is God from the nature of God the Son.”

Likewise Cyril in his Thesaurus says: “It is necessary for our salvation to confess that the Holy Spirit exists of the essence of the Son, as existing of him by nature.” Footnote So, too, Epiphanius in his book on the Trinity: “You cut yourself off from the grace of God when you do not admit the Son to be from the Father or say that the Holy Spirit is not from the Father and the Son.”

You got "chapter and verse" for those so people can look up the original contexts? I have a hard time believing that Cyril, Epiphanius (and especially Athanasius) even knew what the Filioque was, much less believed in it.

So to be saved you must have the same faith as St.Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, St Francis Assisi...which you don't because you haven't studied enough or just refuse the truth in your stubbornness..you better rethink your position

Like you do in any meaningful sense. Your God places all His emphasis on a visible man and then says "jk guys! You're on your own!" I don't think any Father or RC Doctor would recognize that.

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

This should be a simple answer: Roman Catholics no matter how their teachings may aline with Orthodoxy are still outside the church.

lolOut of the 2 only the Roman Catholic Church teaches as a dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church

St Thomas stated if you don't believe in the filioque you don't have the faithCHAPTER 31That to believe the Holy Spirit is from the Son is necessary for salvation.For Athanasius says in his letter to Serapion: “In accord with the command of the Apostle (Tit. 3:10): After a first and second correction avoid a heretic, even those you might see flying through the air with Elijah or walking dryshod on the water like Peter and Moses; unless they profess just as we profess that the Holy Spirit is God naturally existing from God the Son, as the son also is naturally God begotten eternally and existing of God and Father, you are not to receive them.” And again: “Have no communion with those who blaspheme and deny that the Holy Spirit is God from the nature of God the Son.”

Likewise Cyril in his Thesaurus says: “It is necessary for our salvation to confess that the Holy Spirit exists of the essence of the Son, as existing of him by nature.” Footnote So, too, Epiphanius in his book on the Trinity: “You cut yourself off from the grace of God when you do not admit the Son to be from the Father or say that the Holy Spirit is not from the Father and the Son.”

You got "chapter and verse" for those so people can look up the original contexts? I have a hard time believing that Cyril, Epiphanius (and especially Athanasius) even knew what the Filioque was, much less believed in it.

So to be saved you must have the same faith as St.Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, St Francis Assisi...which you don't because you haven't studied enough or just refuse the truth in your stubbornness..you better rethink your position

Like you do in any meaningful sense. Your God places all His emphasis on a visible man and then says "jk guys! You're on your own!" I don't think any Father or RC Doctor would recognize that.

As I've said before, William Webster stated that Thomas's "Against the Greeks" almost completely used spurious texts / forgeries.